Talk:Saratoga (NX-05)
Names I think this one should be up for deletion. It's pretty obvious that the NX class ships were going to be named after the Space Shuttles, and last time I checked, there was no Space Shuttle Saratoga. NX-05 should be Atlantis. --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 16:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :Yes, but this name is given in the fan fiction list of ships on Trekmania -- an established fan fiction starship site. Maybe in your universe things would be different, but we've established that this wiki can use things from multiple universes and creators... definitely not eligible for deletion by your reasons stated above then .. unless you are saying certain people or types of fan fiction don't deserve to be on this site. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::I don't think it should be deleted outright. Maybe just merged into a larger page for Trekmania stubs like these. Like I've said before, if any one of them gets expanded later on, it can be turned back into an individual article on its own page. --SasorizaA•T 17:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :::I'm definitely against this merge idea. each ship having its own page, its own categorization, its own possibilities for expansion is the very reason i started adding ships and lists of ships to STEU, back in 2005. Just because you don't like the source or the low level of information provided about them in the source is not a valid reason to compress them all into one huge, unmanageable, oversized article, or a confusing series of articles. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::::I say (for now) we group all of the Trekmania ships together. Most of them are just two or three sentences and they can be given their own articles when they are expanded. It's just that right now, they don't really need to be set up as a bunch of different articles when they're all the same thing. --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 17:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :::::By the same token, there's no reason they shouldn't be individual articles. It's not like they're taking up room. There are articles this small on MA. --TimPendragon 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::That may be true, but (just using the Daedalus class articles as an example) the Trekmania articles are pretty much all the same per class, just with unique names and registries per article. --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :::::::And they're not hurting anything by being separate articles. --TimPendragon 17:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :I really think merging is completely the wrong move to make. You guys are intent on getting rid of these articles, but since the deletion suggestion didn't go through, your fall back plan in to instead delete them all, and put all the info in one article just so you can pretend you are honoring the desires of those who opposed deletion. This wasn't what I intended when I began adding starship articles. No one warned me that there was any policy that articles could only exist if they were long enough to be approved by the elite here... (this is not being snide, it is me attempting to keep these articles separate). -- Captain M.K.B. 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::Oh, for the love of God. There is no elitist conspiracy at work here, Mike. Sasoriza made a suggestion. No one is implying that your additions aren't valuable. No one is out to get you because you're "from Memory Alpha," or for any other reason. Stop taking everything as a personal attack. Stop lashing out at people who disagree with you. Grow up. --TimPendragon 17:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::Then I suggest we honor the deletion consensus to keep these articles -- and put an end to the "merge" argument. Otherwise i will continue behaving as a child. nanny-nanny-poo-poo and all that. snidey-snidey-snide-snide. ::Seriously, though, why don't you guys forget getting around a deletion discussion by suggesting an unworkable merge which seems like a much worse idea. there are some rank insignia on this site that i feel are less useful that the starship articles, but i'm letting that user have his fun and build his castle of articles, with the hopes it will grow into something bigger than what it is now. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :::I don't know why you keep going on about "deletion" and "trying to get around it". What are you blathering about? Speaking for myself, if I wanted them deleted, I wouldn't have said they're worthy of inclusion and removed the delete tags. :::As for telling others what to do... Why don't you stop with the childish nonsense and take the advice you were given before: Address others politely. While you're at it, get that chip off your shoulder. I think you do good work here, but there's no excuse for your disruptive tirade. For the last time: Knock it off. --SasorizaA•T 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)